Incoherent Empire Micheal Mann Samples †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Incoherent Empire Micheal Mann. Answer: In the following book, Incoherent Empire, the author Michael Mann has condemned the concept of successful establishment of a global empire by the United States of America. The author eludes to establish a precise declaration concerning the speculative outline of Foreign Relations he witnesses to for the evaluation of the United States and its overseas strategy comportment (Baylis et al. 2017).The following critical essay in the form of a book review will assess the conjectures, realistic information and the arguments of reasoning which Mann has used to state the United States of America being a world power and there will be comparisons and disparity among the number of theories and structures of International Relations (Bell 2017). In Incoherent Empire, Mann has begun the argument with the assessment of military power possessed by the United States of America, compared with the historical systems and even with the global standards of the contemporary world. Mann is imperative in his stance that the United States has no rival in the military power as it is above and beyond every country in the world (Daddow 2017). This conclusion is drawn by him by considering the military agendas of different countries in the world who have the potential to become a superpower. He takes the example of the European Union and Japan who are not in pursuit of military power. In his book, Mann has done an analysis of the military budget allocations and spending of the United States which determines that the country has no substantial contender in the military prowess (Devetak et al. 2017). Mann supports his argument in the book by a strong evidence of pragmatic nature which has helped to justify his point. The data goes as in 2003 t he entire budget for military alone of the United States was forty-five percent, cumulatively taken of the entire world. One the same grounds, United States claims that its military spending was twenty-five times more than all the seven enemy countries which the United States considers to be, taken combined (Gilpin, 2016). But this argument made by Mann does not comply with the real notion of Realism. Manns logic when compared to the Realist theories are not consistent as the evaluation of power in the role of a realist. There are actually two types of realist, one of which are the traditional realists who believe in the actual capability of a nation and another one are the neorealist who tend to believe in the relative capability of a nation (Guilhot 2017). This theory sets the position of military power on top of any other forms of power which countries of the world and especially United States possesses. Mann has been a pessimist in his method and he explains the things not as they are in their existence but how the things supposed to be. However, Mann in his book Incoherent Empire leaves the conventional Realist method quite early. He thinks that the notion of other powers of the world such as Europe and Japan do not pursue military power is inconsistent with the realistic method (Haynes et al. 2017). As it has been stated by the realists that power is endemic in the international relations and there is no such country in this modern world who does not seek power. Mann has ascertained that the policies of Japan and Europe are in contradiction with the expedition to gain military supremacy as their thinking and behavior suggest that they elude violence and conflicts of military nature. The reasons that made Mann believe about the countries like Japan and the entire continent of Europe to be a superpower is the additional factors of supremacy other than the military powers (Jervis 2017). Taking Realism as the concept of discussion, Mann has identified four major factors for building an empire. These factors are: capacity of a nation to pacify the citizens of the land which has been occupied, defense, capacity to annex territories and the power to launch an offensive strike. Mann has been open to discuss the nuclear power of the United States and has made a point by declaring that united State has about 9000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal which is way more than any other country in the world (Jrgensen 2017). This is a strong point for Mann to support his argument. However, it has been stated by Mann in his book that United States lack in the relative capacity of the soldiers when it comes to pacification action in the territories which are conquered. As China has 2.5 million soldiers in its military United States only has 1.45 million soldiers which is quite less that its competitor (Guilhot 2017). When the number of expandable human force is taken into consideration , United States have insufficient number of soldiers to police the entire world at once as they have only 5% of soldiers of the global total (Kelly 2017). Therefore Mann states that United States is not an empire which is a position for a country, if it has a global presence of military. But this logic is not correct from a historical point of view as the British Kingdom established a global empire with a very less number of military force as compared to what United States has today. Mann states that if the United States is unable to pacify people with its military power then it has to do it with the weapon of modern nationalism (Mathur 2017). When it comes to global deployment of military forces, Mann states the United States has the capacity for global deployment. He supports his argument with the fact that United States has 132 military observations in the countries all around the globe which ranges from refueling centers to proper military bases. Mann takes history in his support to state that United States is the first country in the history of the world to have complete global military presence (Miskimmon, O'Loughlin and Roselle 2017). However, Mann pints out that there is one major hindrance in the ruling of United States as they are bound to take permissions and have to comply to the rules of their surroundings to take any radical step. The government of United States is not allowed to make decisions on their own. There is a downside to the military presence of United States in many countries as it encourages the sense of hostility among the leaders of those countries and indigenous people feel insecure due to a fo reign military presence in the proximity of their country (Parrington 2017). Mann has done the evaluation of United States firepower which according to him is considered as the biggest asset. Mann establishes that the introduction of Revolution in Military Affairs and their superiority in the information war provides leverage to the United States to inflict great damage to its rival with very minimal loss of lives of its citizens. Mann has his empirical evidences to support his argument as this advantage of United States in the sophistication of weapons and modernization of technology gives them the cutting edge (Purdon 2017). The modern weapons such as guided missiles of long range, self-steering tanks, predator planes and self-destructing landmines which comes in the paths of ongoing vehicles automatically are some military assets of the United States which no other country in the world has. Another reason for United States to develop their arsenal is that the rogue nations which are defined by the U.S. have started procuring nuclear warheads and weapons of mass destruction. There is a need for U.S. to be prepared as the terrorist activities are increasing as they are known to build primitive bombs and have frequently used suicide bombers (Ravenhill 2017). Mann states that these are the traits of weak powers as they rely on chemical and biological weapons to compete with the strong nations. Mann has also added that U.S. has not stopped production of chemical and biological weapons till the late 70s and they still have them. Mann asserts that ruling the territories which are acquired needs enlisting and empowering locals who are loyal to the U.S. government. Sometimes U.S. succeeds in establishing such system and sometimes it fails. Mann describes the military presence with a hint of wit that U.S. military does not take help from the natives they use M-16s. Mann refers to the cases where U.S. military has involved local helpers in Afghanistan and have also taken help from the Kurds in Iraq (Steele 2017). Mann concludes that U.S. is not an empire because of its military and also says that U.S. does not have the highest number of nuclear warheads on the present day. The power of nuclear weaponry has been mooted by other countries that possess them as their use by U.S. will compel other nations to use their nuclear warheads too. The collateral damage will be unfathomable that is why U.S. cannot use it (Daddow 2017). Mann states that if U.S. was to build an empire, the global presence of military would have been based on autonomous authoritarian decisions and the U.S. does not have to take consent of the respective countries. It has been proved from the earlier attacks that the firepower of U.S. is irrelevant to tackle the extremely distributed terrorist activities. When International Relations are discussed on the basis of political realism, then it becomes apparent that Mann is in consensus with many of its possibilities. Mann believes that U.S. can be seen as a balanced actor which is doing the same things which the historical superpowers have done in their time which is to rule in a classical way (Baylis et al. 2017). U.S. always tries to maintain its hegemony by retaining its relative capacities and avoiding any depreciation in its relative power. U.S. exercises it international relation policies by following the concept of domination and survival. Mann states that U.S. portrays its foreign policies are based on the notion of freedom, hence it calls its military as the freedom fighters and has also named the Iraq invasion as Operation Iraqi Freedom (Jervis 2017). This policy, as perceived by Mann justifies the actions of U.S. and gives them a legitimate angle so that public of the U.S believe in its greatness. Mann has noted that the mass m edia of U.S. has staunchly appreciated its development of mass destruction weapons and has shown that with the use of these weapons there will be very few human causalities. Mann states that U.S. has been successful in manufacturing consent of its people which is a part of its rational actor approach (Kelly 2017). Mann refers that according to the Burchill text and in accordance with the fourth principle of Realism, state behavior is not influenced by the moral principles but they have certain implications which every nation has to adhere. Mann believes that the notion of U.S. that if you are not with us then you are against us is creating more enemies of the state. He states that there is a global resistance to the policies of U.S. If there is any terrorist attack the other powers come and sympathize with U.S. but behind its back they strengthen the hostility (Jrgensen 2017).Mann in his work Incoherent Empire has also talked about the internal politics in Incoherent Empire which has become very dirty with time. According to the Public Choice Theory, the politicians of U.S. are looking to maximize their chances of getting reelected. Mann has also discussed the Structural Approach in which he has mentioned strong involvement of global capitalism. He has suggested the economy of U.S. is on war f ooting. He states that U.S. has applied the economic tactics in its warfare techniques during its invasion in Cuba and Iraq (Mathur 2017). Mann has done heavy analysis on the political economy of U.S. He has mentioned that the Latin America has been hit by neo-liberalism which caused the division of wealth in the world. He has mentioned the contract killings of Columbian Labor Organizations by the American sweatshops. Mann has also raised the issue of U.S pharmaceutical companies have been extorting good amount of money from the AIDS patients in Africa (Miskimmon, O'Loughlin and Roselle 2017). Through the book, Mann has talked about the structural approach adopted by U.S which is inclined towards the foreign policy framework and implementation which manipulates certain people to gain special interests. References Baylis, J., Owens, P. and Smith, S. eds., 2017.The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press. Bell, D., 2017. Political realism and international relations.Philosophy Compass,12(2). Daddow, O., 2017.International relations theory. Sage. Devetak, R., George, J. and Percy, S. eds., 2017.An introduction to international relations. Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, R., 2016.The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press. Guilhot, N., 2017.After the Enlightenment: Political Realism and International Relations in the Mid-Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. Haynes, J., Hough, P., Malik, S. and Pettiford, L., 2017.World Politics: International Relations and Globalisation in the 21st Century. SAGE. Jervis, R., 2017.Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press. Jrgensen, K.E., 2017.International relations theory: A new introduction. Springer. Kelly, G.A., 2017.Politics and Religious Consciousness in America. Routledge. Mathur, S.P., 2017. International Relations in South Asia and Attitudes of United America.Journal of Social Sciences Multidisciplinary Management Studies,1(2), pp.27-38. Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B. and Roselle, L., 2017.Forging the world: strategic narratives and international relations. University of Michigan Press. Parrington, V., 2017.The Beginnings of Critical Realism in America: Main Currents in American Thought. Routledge. Purdon, M., 2017. Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance.Journal of International Relations and Development,20(2), pp.263-300. Ravenhill, J. ed., 2017.Global political economy. Oxford University Press. Steele, B., 2017. Broadening the Contestation of Norms in International Relations.Polity,49(1), pp.132-138.